Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >

Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT had
an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.

Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law. You
can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his ass like a
bad habit.

 

Yeah - well, see what happens if lightening strikes in the deserts of
California. BTW - when I was in San Diego last week, there were reports
on the news that a sheriff's helicopter in the air spotted the start of
one of the fires and radio'd for a water-dumping chopper that was
already in the air. It was 5 minutes past the curfew for the
helicopters to be allowed to fly, so they did not let the helicopter go
and dump water on the (at that moment) small fire. Only in California!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
journal. But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.

 

LLoyd,
are you published anywhere?

 

Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?

 

So now this is becoming a religious thread here, too...?..

DAS

 

Oh - I agree - I think a person is crazy to build a house there or at a
shoreline that gets hit by a hurricane regularly - if you do, do so at
your own risk - don't expect me to subsidize your re-build either
through gov't aid or insurance.

I guess I would only take exception to your phrase "supposed to".
That's determined by the people thru whatever legal or political system
is in place (zoning, etc.) - but either allow the building *AND* the
proper management to protect the property, or don't allow building and
let nature take its course. But don't allow people to build and provide
streets, water and other tax supported infrastructure, and then forbid
them to protect their property - that's insanity.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

The problem with counting up all the votes in 2000 and calling it a popular
votes is that there wasn't a popular vote campaign. The two campaigns spent
all of their time in battleground states trying to get out the vote. They
spent either no time or very little time in states where the state election
was not in doubt. Why would Gore have spent 5 minutes in Massachusetts
trying to get more Democrats out to vote when he didn't need any more to win
there?

I agree about Clinton being less of a liberal than being self absorbed.
I'll never forget when he spoke at the Democrat National Convention back in
'88 when he went on and on rambling even when the crowd started booing him.

 

"Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary"
Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
"social programs" and pork that I HATE...

 

Fascist - 2 : a person who exhibits a tendency toward or actual exercise
of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Hmmm, This seems to describe all those people who want to tell me what
to drive. Anyone here meet that description?

Ed

 

Each state certified its election returns.

And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?

Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
batting .500.

Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion rights
from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...

 

Go to their web site and read about it.

 

Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.

 

OK, ask the middle class if they want college grants and scholarships cut. If
they want their parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want
workplace safety not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they
want to eliminate prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.

 

Right-wing propaganda.

And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
steps to get it under control.

For the wealthy, not the middle class.

 

OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn until
rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of pollution
into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
place....didn't you?

Ed

 

OK, ask the middle class <<

And, who might the "middle class" be Lloyd? By the tax code the liar
Clinton and the Democrats rammed down everyone's throats, anyone making $50k
a year is Rich"! We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
middle class tax cut. As soon as the worm got elected he promptly went on TV
and abandoned it, then signed into law the biggest tax increase in history.

parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want workplace safety
not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they want to eliminate
prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.>

This rant is precisely why the Liberals are out of power, everyone (even the
elderly) see through these typical Liberal scare tactics and lies. Fact is,
all these people know to do is create more useless Federal agancies, fill
them full of lazy-ass patronage workers and pause taxts to pay for it all.

 

Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism where
government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.

Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.

 

I find your repeated reference to "real scientist" to be somewhat irritating. Can
you define a "real scientist" as opposed to just a plain old "scientist"? Do you
consider "real scientist" to be ones that agree with you and those who don't are
"false scientist"? I know there are plenty of people who call themselves
scientist that I don't agree with. Many of them publish in peer reviewed
journals. Some of them just post messages to newsgroups. Can we consider that to
be a peer review?

Regards,

Ed White